Heh, bluntly, I don't think the majority of them give a fuck about ethics.

They're not breaking any laws, and they derive their income from hits. It's in their best interest to do whatever gets them the most possible views at any cost.

The only way that ethics enters into it is when (inevitably) a GIANT YOUTUBE SCANDAL hits one of the bigger personalities, and if it actually affects their viewership.

A likely scenario is that these PR/publisher ties to one of these streamers is exposed in an ugly manner and their subscribers feel betrayed and depart in large numbers.

But unless that happens, they have literally no reason to change their behavior, and plenty of good reasons to become more closely tied with PR.

Plus I suspect a fair number of them are savvy enough to understand that being transparent about their connections will let them get away with it - teen boys watching CoD videos often don't care about this stuff anyway, and they generate a loooooooooooooooot of traffic.

And yes, this certainly does have implications for web media in the future.

As far as the games themselves go, the nice thing about live video is that it doesn't lie. The commentator might, but the video won't. And in the case of live streaming, it's even easier to hear if someone is genuinely enjoying themselves. You can't fake real fun - one of the main reasons my stream was so popular is that my most common 'mode' of play was with a group of 3-5 good friends, playing relatively organized teamplay and generally fucking around like idiots and laughing a lot. Good vibes, basically, not rage.

Now, when we're talking about prerelease games being distributed to Machinima partners (this is going to happen more, not less), you're suddenly going to have the impressions of dozens of youtube posters live before the game comes out - for a game that is good, this is a hilariously cheap way for PR to get the word out about their game. I'd expect that shitty games won't get this treatment, because even someone who is a total shill will have a hard time selling that in video - something that's much easier to do in print.

Plus, keep in mind we have an entire generation being conditioned to not want to read a damn thing longer than 140 characters, who would rather watch a video. Long form text articles? Good luck!

Member

Perhaps part of the reason videogame journalism in particular feels so unsure at the moment is because the term encompasses two different activities. First, theres reporting on deals and moves in the videogame industry. Second, there is the critical evaluation of a finished work of art. In other fields, its not often the case that the same writer does both. Anthony Lane reviews films in the New Yorker but does not also report on mogul transfers or box-office stats for Variety. In videogames, writers routinely do both  most of the time with integrity, but its the lack of a firewall between the practices that sometimes provokes worries about corruptibility.

Member

The form of games writing that we're all trying to "save" might already be on its last legs. If we do manage to give the journalists a booster shot of integrity, it may be like convincing the captain of the Titanic to learn to sing opera.

I mean if a kid like that is earning that much money (and it sounds like many others like him are, as well), how can the traditional media hope to compete? What is it we're really hoping to preserve?

Man, do I feel old. I honestly had no idea. Props again to Eurogamer for keeping their ears to the ground.

I'm not sure if any of the folks I was communicating with a bunch of pages back are still watching/reading/chatting. But I have a thought about something that you might do that could, over time, make a difference (if anything will).

Why not start a dedicated thread here on NeoGAF, to serve two purposes.

1. Publicly state your (ideally consensually arrived at) demands/standards/expectations. This document, or set of principles, could be directed at two different audiences/structures: the existing big-business/corporate games (pseudo-)media structure, and the inchoate grassroots alternative games press. In each case, you could explicitly detail what you believe is required for the legitimacy of entities within the given framework. You could list the kinds of hiring practices, disclosure and transparency practices, standards of professional and critical distance, absolute-no-go-zone principles, procedures of rectification (when there are missteps), and so forth, which you'd expect of a legitimate gaming media entity.

2. Catalog, case-study style, examples of entities/individuals which are, or are not, living up to the standards outlined in the document. When the policies you've provided are violated, you'd have a dedicated place to explain and discuss the problems. When sites or individuals do well, you'd have a place to explain and discuss those successes, too.

Over time, if this worked, the result would be a living and developing best-practices document, with case studies, for the games media.

Personally, I think the first step is difficult to do - to get a dedicated group of GAFfers to do research, draft a code of ethics, and try to arrive at a consensus. I'm willing to take part in this, but I'm not sure if we can get this done.

The second step is the easier bit - being a sort of watchdog of the press, bring any alleged unprofessional or exemplar ethical conduct for scrutiny, and catalogue.

I'm highlighting that post because I think this thread needs a purpose once all this "controversy" dies down. Even if the games press doesn't change significantly, I see value in archival of journalistic/critical practices in games.

*beard*

I don't think its worthwhile because like I said earlier, unless we're paying them, they owe us nothing.

But for what its worth, I would be more inclined to read sites who fully disclose PR related activities around a game in clearly labelled boxes on articles, and cordoned off all Press Releases in a separate section ala gamasutra (http://gamasutra.com/pressreleases)

I don't care if they doctor the press releases to make them 'more readable' or whatever, just keep them in their own place so they don't interrupt the regular flow of actual news (ie, something your site is reporting, not something you got from the PR email list).

Having preview/review writers and feature writers completely separated would also be nice, but I don't see that happening. Pay is low in this business, many writers are freelance, etc.

Member

I'm not sure if any of the folks I was communicating with a bunch of pages back are still watching/reading/chatting. But I have a thought about something that you might do that could, over time, make a difference (if anything will).

Why not start a dedicated thread here on NeoGAF, to serve two purposes.

1. Publicly state your (ideally consensually arrived at) demands/standards/expectations. This document, or set of principles, could be directed at two different audiences/structures: the existing big-business/corporate games (pseudo-)media structure, and the inchoate grassroots alternative games press. In each case, you could explicitly detail what you believe is required for the legitimacy of entities within the given framework. You could list the kinds of hiring practices, disclosure and transparency practices, standards of professional and critical distance, absolute-no-go-zone principles, procedures of rectification (when there are missteps), and so forth, which you'd expect of a legitimate gaming media entity.

2. Catalog, case-study style, examples of entities/individuals which are, or are not, living up to the standards outlined in the document. When the policies you've provided are violated, you'd have a dedicated place to explain and discuss the problems. When sites or individuals do well, you'd have a place to explain and discuss those successes, too.

Over time, if this worked, the result would be a living and developing best-practices document, with case studies, for the games media.

I'm 100% behind this idea. At the very least some kind of regular watchdog style resource thread for reporting on the behavior of various gaming media outlets and their respective staffers is long overdue.

Member

The form of games writing that we're all trying to "save" might already be on its last legs. If we do manage to give the journalists a booster shot of integrity, it may be like convincing the captain of the Titanic to learn to sing opera.

I mean if a kid like that is earning that much money (and it sounds like many others like him are, as well), how can the traditional media hope to compete? What is it we're really hoping to preserve?

Man, do I feel old. I honestly had no idea. Props again to Eurogamer for keeping their ears to the ground.

Member

I think that right now, if GAF made a "watchdog" thread it would not be very effective, at least outside of GAF. There would be a ton of generalization (like there has been in this thread), and even legitimate points and critiques would get dismissed because there is a general perception that GAF will hate on the press no matter what we do. That perception is not undeserved.

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

Member

I think that right now, if GAF made a "watchdog" thread it would not be very effective, at least outside of GAF. There would be a ton of generalization (like there has been in this thread), and even legitimate points and critiques would get dismissed because there is a general perception that GAF will hate on the press no matter what we do. That perception is not undeserved.

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good examples of journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

Member

I think that right now, if GAF made a "watchdog" thread it would not be very effective, at least outside of GAF. There would be a ton of generalization (like there has been in this thread), and even legitimate points and critiques would get dismissed because there is a general perception that GAF will hate on the press no matter what we do. That perception is not undeserved.

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

Banned

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

"Hey look, Polygon has a great ethical statement posted on their website!"
"This guy disclosed everything he received from a publisher for this review!"
"This preview described exactly what sort of conditions he saw the game under!"
"This reporting is great!"

Isn't that what you guys are asking for in this thread? I'm not saying there should be a thread where people post about how journalists and PR are interacting behind the scenes. I'm saying encouraging positivity would be far more productive than the usual practice of slamming all gaming press.

Member

I think that right now, if GAF made a "watchdog" thread it would not be very effective, at least outside of GAF. There would be a ton of generalization (like there has been in this thread), and even legitimate points and critiques would get dismissed because there is a general perception that GAF will hate on the press no matter what we do. That perception is not undeserved.

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

Nope. Most of GAF loved Jeff Green and Shawn Elliott. We can see through the barbs that the press fire out whenever criticized. The Monster Hunter article is a good example of people pointing out a HUGE procedural mistake in how Kotaku reports news, only to be ignored by you.

It's easy to get angry at us when no one in your own profession calls you out or questions the method of your reporting.

Part of being a professional is responding to criticism with an open mind.

Banned

The form of games writing that we're all trying to "save" might already be on its last legs. If we do manage to give the journalists a booster shot of integrity, it may be like convincing the captain of the Titanic to learn to sing opera.

I mean if a kid like that is earning that much money (and it sounds like many others like him are, as well), how can the traditional media hope to compete? What is it we're really hoping to preserve?

Man, do I feel old. I honestly had no idea. Props again to Eurogamer for keeping their ears to the ground.

1) Note how that kid at the end of his article said that he is honored Eurogamer knows who he is and his ultimate goal is to get a job in the games industry. Theoretically his audience would follow him; the content form would be different, of course, perhaps this dude becomes Giant Bomb: The New Class or something.

2) Regardless, we are still a demographic. Just because you get old doesn't mean you aren't catered to. Maybe you no longer fit that iconic American "Mountain Dew" demo, but you are still a demographic with a market targeted at you nonetheless. I will probably, in some form, be consuming game media all my life. There are literally millions other like me. The size of the pool of writers and number of sites may shrink, but I don't think it is going away.

3) If the traditional "games media" can prove to have integrity, then that alone could separate it from these youtube stars of the world. This new form of media makes it all the more important that old kind does what it can to distinguish itself from someone that is so susceptible to corporate influence.

Member

I think that right now, if GAF made a "watchdog" thread it would not be very effective, at least outside of GAF. There would be a ton of generalization (like there has been in this thread), and even legitimate points and critiques would get dismissed because there is a general perception that GAF will hate on the press no matter what we do. That perception is not undeserved.

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

If only everything were that transparent. It's easier to catch people out when they mess up than to elevate examples of what's praiseworthy. People will argue that a certain review is paid simply for scoring a game in a way they think is unfair or don't like. It wouldn't work because people will doubt everything, which is the problem you're now faced with. Both ideas seem kind of unfeasible to me though.

Banned

I think that right now, if GAF made a "watchdog" thread it would not be very effective, at least outside of GAF. There would be a ton of generalization (like there has been in this thread), and even legitimate points and critiques would get dismissed because there is a general perception that GAF will hate on the press no matter what we do. That perception is not undeserved.

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

I know you are busy, so no offense, but I don't think you are accurately representing this thread. In fact a lot of us have been pointing to examples of writers and sites that we think are doing a great job. That doesn't mean they are perfect or above criticism, but their heads are generally screwed on right where these issues involving critical distance are concerned.

Giant Bomb and Rock Paper Shotgun have been the most frequently mentioned. I agree with both of those.

A lot of people, myself included, also gave Polygon credit for taking down that silly Pizza Hut Halo Avatar story earlier today. We criticized, they reflected on it and how it related to the image they wanted to project and ultimately listened. I appreciate that.

Jeff Gerstman came in here yesterday and had two or three extensive posts on his thoughts. If you look back over the thread, you'll see that almost everybody found his positions pretty reasonable and agreeable. Even people who admitted they weren't the biggest fan of the site.

Member

"Hey look, Polygon has a great ethical statement posted on their website!"
"This guy disclosed everything he received from a publisher for this review!"
"This preview described exactly what sort of conditions he saw the game under!"
"This reporting is great!"

Isn't that what you guys are asking for in this thread? I'm not saying there should be a thread where people post about how journalists and PR are interacting behind the scenes. I'm saying encouraging positivity would be far more productive than the usual practice of slamming all gaming press.

It would have been more productive if the gaming press had tried to understand the issues being raised rather than mocking them on twitter or resorting to the usual slurs they routinely throw at their potential customers.

Member

"Hey look, Polygon has a great ethical statement posted on their website!"
"This guy disclosed everything he received from a publisher for this review!"
"This preview described exactly what sort of conditions he saw the game under!"
"This reporting is great!"

Isn't that what you guys are asking for in this thread? I'm not saying there should be a thread where people post about how journalists and PR are interacting behind the scenes. I'm saying encouraging positivity would be far more productive than the usual practice of slamming all gaming press.

Member

Nope. Most of GAF loved Jeff Green and Shawn Elliott. We can see through the barbs that the press fire out whenever criticized. The Monster Hunter article is a good example of people pointing out a HUGE procedural mistake in how Kotaku reports news, only to be ignored by you.

It's easy to get angry at us when no one in your own profession calls you out or questions the method of your reporting.

Part of being a professional is responding to criticism with an open mind.

You're missing my point. I am not talking about specific criticiques. I am talking about the constant barrage of posts that say things like "lol game journalism" or "more like games marketers" or "Kotaku is garbage" or any of the other many generalizations that you can find in this thread and elsewhere on GAF. Do you think that sort of thing makes reporters want to listen to the people here, even when they make valid points?

Member

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

so we do talk about good gaming journalism, i mean it still bugs me that good pieces get less play here than complaining about some rubbish ign posted - this ones lack of interest annoyed me in particular. that said complaining is easy and there's plenty to do. we aren't going to reward you guys for hitting the bare minimum.

Member

I know you are busy, so no offense, but I don't think you are accurately representing this thread. In fact a lot of us have been pointing to examples of writers and sites that we think are doing a great job. That doesn't mean they are perfect or above criticism, but their heads are generally screwed on right where these issues involving critical distance are concerned.

Giant Bomb and Rock Paper Shotgun have been the most frequently mentioned. I agree with both of those.

A lot of people, myself included, also gave Polygon credit for taking down that silly Pizza Hut Halo Avatar story earlier today. We criticized, they reflected on it and how it related to the image they wanted to project and ultimately listened. I appreciate that.

Right, and when people here are constantly bringing up Giant Bomb and Rock Paper Shotgun while simultaneously ignoring all the great articles that you might find on Kotaku or Joystiq or Polygon or 1up or GameSpot or Eurogamer or wherever else, you can perhaps see why GAF leaves a bad taste in a lot of reporters' mouths.

Member

"Hey look, Polygon has a great ethical statement posted on their website!"
"This guy disclosed everything he received from a publisher for this review!"
"This preview described exactly what sort of conditions he saw the game under!"
"This reporting is great!"

Isn't that what you guys are asking for in this thread? I'm not saying there should be a thread where people post about how journalists and PR are interacting behind the scenes. I'm saying encouraging positivity would be far more productive than the usual practice of slamming all gaming press.

Banned

Right, and when people here are constantly bringing up Giant Bomb and Rock Paper Shotgun while simultaneously ignoring all the great articles that you might find on Kotaku or Joystiq or Polygon or 1up or GameSpot or Eurogamer or wherever else, you can perhaps see why GAF leaves a bad taste in a lot of reporters' mouths.

Member

It would have been more productive if the gaming press had tried to understand the issues being raised rather than mocking them on twitter or resorting to the usual slurs they routinely throw at their potential customers.

My point is that I think we should try to understand why the response to a big GAF thread like this is often "welp, GAF's up in arms about game journalists again" instead of "oh, hey, we should listen to these issues."

I'm not saying that's the *right* response, but it doesn't exactly come from nowhere.

Member

Right, and when people here are constantly bringing up Giant Bomb and Rock Paper Shotgun while simultaneously ignoring all the great articles that you might find on Kotaku or Joystiq or Polygon or 1up or GameSpot or Eurogamer or wherever else, you can perhaps see why GAF leaves a bad taste in a lot of reporters' mouths.

The reason people have taken to doing that is simple: those sites have continually provided such articles to them. They don't have to rummage through a bin of content they may find distasteful to find them. It is a privelege earned from their readers.

Member

You're missing my point. I am not talking about specific criticiques. I am talking about the constant barrage of posts that say things like "lol game journalism" or "more like games marketers" or "Kotaku is garbage" or any of the other many generalizations that you can find in this thread and elsewhere on GAF. Do you think that sort of thing makes reporters want to listen to the people here, even when they make valid points?

No, but I think a lot of people are making good points without using those dismissive phrases. I think it's easy only to read the people who make drive-by "lol Kotaku" posts and not look at the other posts in a thread.

Right, but I'm not talking about this thread. I'm talking about a hypothetical "watchdog" thread that might be ignored by the press for various reasons, including a couple of the points I've brought up.

so we do talk about good gaming journalism, i mean it still bugs me that good pieces get less play here than complaining about some rubbish ign posted - this ones lack of interest annoyed me in particular. that said complaining is easy and there's plenty to do. we aren't going to reward you guys for hitting the bare minimum.

Member

"Hey look, Polygon has a great ethical statement posted on their website!"
"This guy disclosed everything he received from a publisher for this review!"
"This preview described exactly what sort of conditions he saw the game under!"
"This reporting is great!"

Isn't that what you guys are asking for in this thread? I'm not saying there should be a thread where people post about how journalists and PR are interacting behind the scenes. I'm saying encouraging positivity would be far more productive than the usual practice of slamming all gaming press.

I actually think this is a great idea. It could be part of a "watchdog" thread. After all, we should encourage the kind of coverage that we're asking for and support great articles.

That said, I'm all for the "watchdog" thread as a start. Who knows, maybe it'll end up being its own thing on the web eventually. I am more than grateful that websites like revstu's Wings over Sealand exist but there are too few of those and they only can do so much. If that website went offline one day, a whole lot of information on media corruption would be lost. It's clear that there are people out there who want to cover this stuff and I want them to go ahead with it.

The reason people have taken to doing that is simple: those sites have continually provided such articles to them. They don't have to rummage through a bin of content they may find distasteful to find them. It is a privelege earned from their readers.

Exactly. I visit those sites frequently because I don't have to wade through loads of bullshit and re-worded press releases in order to find something worthwhile to read. Florence said it in his original Eurogamer piece: it's about perception. About not looking like an industry mouthpiece. If your good articles don't get the attention because of all the crap that surrounds them, that's your fault as an outlet.

Member

No, but I think a lot of people are making good points without using those dismissive phrases. I think it's easy only to read the people who make drive-by "lol Kotaku" posts and not look at the other posts in a thread.

Sure! There have been some awful posts in this thread, but they don't make up the majority. But did you see that Polygon thread? People were acting crazy. That's the sort of thing that builds up the perception of GAF as hivemind/mob, you know?

Member

Right, and when people here are constantly bringing up Giant Bomb and Rock Paper Shotgun while simultaneously ignoring all the great articles that you might find on Kotaku or Joystiq or Polygon or 1up or GameSpot or Eurogamer or wherever else, you can perhaps see why GAF leaves a bad taste in a lot of reporters' mouths.

The reason people have taken to doing that is simple: those sites have continually provided such articles to them. They don't have to rummage through a bin of content they may find distasteful to find them. It is a privelege earned from their readers.

Banned

My point is that I think we should try to understand why the response to a big GAF thread like this is often "welp, GAF's up in arms about game journalists again" instead of "oh, hey, we should listen to these issues."

I'm not saying that's the *right* response, but it doesn't exactly come from nowhere.

We are supposedly the audience. They should care what we say. If a particular journalist/website wants to write off this issue. That is fine by me. I don't have to visit there site or read their stuff.

In addition to the bad articles, this thread has also been great for showing us who the stand up guys are and there have been enough of them now that anyone who doesn't want to listen, that is there problem.

Honestly I see this thread as being more or the audience anyway. It is here for us to start policing this stuff and determining who deserves our attention and who doesn't. I am not here to provide psychological therapy for game media people with self esteem issues. I call it as I see it.

Member

You're missing my point. I am not talking about specific criticiques. I am talking about the constant barrage of posts that say things like "lol game journalism" or "more like games marketers" or "Kotaku is garbage" or any of the other many generalizations that you can find in this thread and elsewhere on GAF. Do you think that sort of thing makes reporters want to listen to the people here, even when they make valid points?

You do realize that the reverse argument can be made for your site( given the constant barrage of posts such as the French fry "story"/Chinese French maid "story", why would any of that make me want to visit that site for a well-written article?)

Right, and when people here are constantly bringing up Giant Bomb and Rock Paper Shotgun while simultaneously ignoring all the great articles that you might find on Kotaku or Joystiq or Polygon or 1up or GameSpot or Eurogamer or wherever else, you can perhaps see why GAF leaves a bad taste in a lot of reporters' mouths.

Member

Sure! There have been some awful posts in this thread, but they don't make up the majority. But did you see that Polygon thread? People were acting crazy. That's the sort of thing that builds up the perception of GAF as hivemind/mob, you know?

I think people had the right to be crazy when you have editors of a news outlet disguising an advertisement as a news story. They edited the image on the story to make it look less "ad-like." People responded with derision. They copy and pasted an article that EGM Now copied from a press release.

When people criticized the story on their website, they censored the commenters.

Member

We are supposedly the audience. They should care what we say. If a particular journalist/website wants to write off this issue. That is fine by me. I don't have to visit there site or read their stuff.

In addition to the bad articles, this thread has also been great for showing us who the stand up guys are and there have been enough of them now that anyone who doesn't want to listen, that is there problem.

Honestly I see this thread as being more or the audience anyway. It is here for us to start policing this stuff and determining who deserves our attention and who doesn't. I am not here to provide psychological therapy for game media people with self esteem issues. I call it as I see it.

You guys are a very small, very vocal fraction of the larger audience on the web. Don't get me wrong: I like it here! Otherwise I wouldn't be posting in this thread. But it's easy for press to write GAF off as a mob of crazies, so my advice for trying to influence reporters in a positive way would be to err on the side of positivity. S'all.

Member

You guys are a very small, very vocal fraction of the larger audience on the web. Don't get me wrong: I like it here! Otherwise I wouldn't be posting in this thread. But it's easy for press to write GAF off as a mob of crazies, so my advice for trying to influence reporters in a positive way would be to err on the side of positivity. S'all.

Member

I just want to note that this hypothetical watchdog thread will also catalogue "good" ethical practices. I did not mention this in my post (I'll edit now), but was there in TruthJunky's post that I quoted.

Member

I just want to note that this hypothetical watchdog thread will also catalogue "good" ethical practices. I did not mention this in my post (I'll edit now), but was there in TruthJunky's post that I quoted.

Banned

You guys are a very small, very vocal fraction of the larger audience on the web. Don't get me wrong: I like it here! Otherwise I wouldn't be posting in this thread. But it's easy for press to write GAF off as a mob of crazies, so my advice for trying to influence reporters in a positive way would be to err on the side of positivity. S'all.

Now we come to an interesting question. Do I care if all/most gaming media changes? I'm not sure. That would be ideal, yes, but I think my major goal here is to suss out the writers I feel I can trust and the ones I want to support in the future.

In my opinion these writers get it. They have talked openly and honestly about this problem in this thread and/or in articles they have written. I am not speaking for everyone, but I am speaking for myself. What I expect is not unreasonable, but it is demanding. I intend to reward them with clicks, likes, and all that silly stuff online media wants. I intend to do that much more than I ever did before after this thread.

There is your "positive" appreciation. And it came directly out of all this "negativity."

Member

Now we come to an interesting question. Do I care if all/most gaming media changes? I'm not sure. That would be ideal, yes, but I think my major goal here is to suss out the writers I feel I can trust and the ones I want to support in the future.

In my opinion these writers get it. They have talked openly and honestly about this problem in this thread and/or in articles they have written. I am not speaking for everyone, but I am speaking for myself. What I expect is not unreasonable, but it is demanding. I intend to reward them with clicks, likes, and all that silly stuff online media wants. I intend to do that much more than I ever did before after this thread.

There is your "positive" appreciation. And it came directly out of all this "negativity."

Banned

I also want to say that what jscheier seems to be promoting is the Martin Luther King Jr. approach to change whereas a lot of us may seem more like Malcolm X. Let me be clear that I realize that this is a discussion of videogames. This is an analogy. I am in no way implying that anything being discussed is remotely as important as the civil rights movement. This is a heuristic device. (I hate the modern meme that people are not allowed analogies without others turning them into literalizations.)

In my mind, I follow Spike Lee's argument that BOTH men's strategies were appropriate and right. King was lucky because he lived in a time period when the dominant culture was sympathetic enough to his views that the power dynamic could shift. Had he been born 50 years earlier, that would not have been the case.

Malcom X's rhetoric and his speeches were not for the larger society. There were about trying to create self respect and self empowerment for the particular group he was speaking to and in that sense he was successful. He was speaking to an audience of peers, not those in power in the status quo.

Member

I think that right now, if GAF made a "watchdog" thread it would not be very effective, at least outside of GAF. There would be a ton of generalization (like there has been in this thread), and even legitimate points and critiques would get dismissed because there is a general perception that GAF will hate on the press no matter what we do. That perception is not undeserved.

What I haven't seen on GAF very much (if at all) are threads dedicated to bringing up examples of good ethical practices or good journalism in gaming. Now that seems like it would be far more productive.

Isn't that what you guys are asking for in this thread? I'm not saying there should be a thread where people post about how journalists and PR are interacting behind the scenes. I'm saying encouraging positivity would be far more productive than the usual practice of slamming all gaming press.

What isn't productive about criticism that points out wrongdoing or bad practices? Why not have both? Why on earth would mainly complimenting the press be more "more productive" at this point or any other? Most of your colleagues are falling over themselves to either ignore this subject, defend and compliment themselves enough as it is, so I think we've had our fair share of that. What's productive about a form of media that wants to act as though it's above the fray and can simply police itself?

Lauren Wainwright uses spurious legal action to bully and stifle the free speech of a fellow journalist, costs the guy his job, brazenly brags about said legal actions afterwards, and all your colleagues can do is threaten to blacklist Robert, deride him and anyone else who wishes to discuss the matter AND on top of all that, as if that wasn't insulting enough, some even go the extra mile in disrespecting the intelligence of everyone in their audiences by playing the sex card in order to basically paint Lauren as some innocent, wide eyed, naive little girl who was sort of just confused about how to properly behave as a journalist and accidentally tried to sue someone into silence in an attempt to convince folks that Robert and others exposing her actions are somehow "the real bullies." Does any of that "discussion" sound "productive" from your end?

"Hey look, Polygon has a great ethical statement posted on their website!"
"This guy disclosed everything he received from a publisher for this review!"
"This preview described exactly what sort of conditions he saw the game under!"
"This reporting is great!"

I agree. But part of what they should ALSO be doing is calling out the writers/websites that they feel are not meeting the standards they expect. Someone needs to call bullshit on Ann Coulter. Someone needs to critique the vapidity of Jersey Shores. Because only then do you get other people to reconsider the information they are consuming and the producers of this stuff to reconsider what they are producing.

Banned

I'm still salty enough I'd rather focus on cutting out the cancerous souls that invade the industry than focus on the good ones. Andrea Renee's recent tweets are so full of fuck, she's lol'ing about the whole issue right now. That kind of person, wainwright and their ilk would never benefit from a thread pointing out the right way to do things simply because they've been encouraged from the start to sell out so they know no other way.

You can't reflect and do soul searching if you've already sold yours away.

Banned

I also want to note that this thread has resulted in some pretty significant changes already, which proves that this is not an insignficant small community yelling into the wind.

Polygon put up a story today and retracted it specifically because of conversation in this thread.

Kotaku decided not to cover this issue and then reconsidered directly as a result of this thread.

There are actually a number of other examples of influence we could probably give. But that stuff is pretty impressive to me. I give credit to the organizations that are listening. I don't think I have ever participated in an internet conversation in my entire life that ever resulted in any change that I've seen in professional website. (Yes, I know other Gaffers are doing to refer to things here; I'm talking about myself). That to me shows that this thread is doing a lot right. There is a lot of really good, smart conversation here. I just hope it continues.

Actually the whole thing has given me a new respect for this community which I admittedly sometimes have belittled and dismissed, probably unfairly, in the past.

Member

I agree. But part of what they should ALSO be doing is calling out the writers/websites that they feel are not meeting the standards they expect. Someone needs to call bullshit on Ann Coulter. Someone needs to critique the vapidity of Jersey Shores. Because only then do you get other people to reconsider the information they are consuming and the producers of this stuff to reconsider what they are producing.

Oh, I don't disagree. But when people get involved with the sort of mob justice that GAF has earned a reputation for, it just leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouths. All I'm saying is, if folks do put together a watchdog thread (which would be great!), some reason, rationality, calmness, and positivity would go miles further than the "lol games 'journalism'" we see so much of these days.